Movies that deserve a spot in the Rotten Tomatoes zero per cent clubAugust 4, 2017

IF YOU’RE a movie maker, the most offensive thing that can happen to your film is if it joins the Zero Per Cent Club.Currently there are only a few hundred members in the club and entry is only gained when a movie receives not one single positive review from film critics on Rotten Tomatoes.Basically, if a movie ends up on the list, it’s best to avoid it at all costs.Here are the movies that well and truly deserve their spot in Rotten Tomatoes’ Zero Per Cent Club:

...(only posting London Fields review)

LONDON FIELDS — 2017How did it all go wrong for this movie? It boasts an impressive cast including Johnny Depp, Billy Bob Thornton and Cara Delevingne, but not one critic could find something nice to say about it.In London Fields, Amber Heard plays a clairvoyant who has a premonition of her death and then starts a love affair with three different men, one of whom she knows will kill her.Here’s what some critics had to say:“Whatever director Matthew Cullen and writer Roberta Hanley have cooked up with this screen adaptation, it’s nothing if not a debauched hodgepodge for the senses that dares you to abandon it at almost every turn.” — The Playlist“Most scenes lack pace, are performed badly and are accompanied by a running commentary of action we can see for ourselves. It’s car-crash filmmaking.” — Independent

According to earlier articles, this thing had one press screening that was attended by about "15 industry insiders" (are critics considered industry insiders?) before being pulled from TIFF's 2015 line up... which means anyone who reviewed the film would have had to be one of those 15 at that single screening. I'm not that interested in critic "opinions", but I fully believe the producer's version of the film is as terrible as they say, and in either case I don't need to see Amber Heard's "soft porn writhings". If this movie ever does come out in some form, I'll watch it out of interest for Johnny's work, but with a grain of salt, as they say... (If the film really was a catalyst in the breakup of Johnny's marriage, maybe it was a blessing in disguise...)

"There is certainly a part of me that tends to be that loner. You never find me in the center of the crowd. I just like to stay back a little and hang in the shadows."

You don't say? That situation seemed to be a hopeless mess, I'm pretty surprised it's going to be released? I guess whoever invested in it wants to get some of their money back, but at this point, seeing Johnny in the same movie w AH and Billy Bob Thorton would be thoroughly weird I think.

Several sources on line are now listing an October 26 release date for the U.S. Of course, all those sources are probably just repeating what they see on each other, but it might be interesting to see Johnny's bit role (as well as weird).

You don't say? That situation seemed to be a hopeless mess, I'm pretty surprised it's going to be released? I guess whoever invested in it wants to get some of their money back, but at this point, seeing Johnny in the same movie w AH and Billy Bob Thorton would be thoroughly weird I think.

Several sources on line are now listing an October 26 release date for the U.S. Of course, all those sources are probably just repeating what they see on each other, but it might be interesting to see Johnny's bit role (as well as weird).

I don't know if I watch London Fields. I'm honest, I can not watch this woman in a movie. For me she is one of the worst actress in Hollywood. I was shocked when I saw the Rum Diary. All actors are so good, but not AH !!! She ruined the character of Chenault. But that's just my personal opinion.

gipsyblues wrote:I don't know if I watch London Fields. I'm honest, I can not watch this woman in a movie. For me she is one of the worst actress in Hollywood. I was shocked when I saw the Rum Diary. All actors are so good, but not AH !!! She ruined the character of Chenault. But that's just my personal opinion.

I feel the same way, gipsyblues. The only appeal of this film for me is Johnny’s five-minute cameo, but the negatives are too overwhelming. I can easily wait for either Netflix or YouTube to see Johnny’s part if so inclined.

gipsyblues wrote:I don't know if I watch London Fields. I'm honest, I can not watch this woman in a movie. For me she is one of the worst actress in Hollywood. I was shocked when I saw the Rum Diary. All actors are so good, but not AH !!! She ruined the character of Chenault. But that's just my personal opinion.

I feel the same way, gipsyblues. The only appeal of this film for me is Johnny’s five-minute cameo, but the negatives are too overwhelming. I can easily wait for either Netflix or YouTube to see Johnny’s part if so inclined.

Thank you justintime !!! Yes, that's exactly my attitude towards the movie. A.H has the biggest performance and Johnny just a small performance. I do not want to support her and watch his performance on Youtube. I know for sure, when I see the movie in the cinema, I'll be sick. Sorry, but this woman is so pathetic.

I read all of the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes - as someone on here pointed out, one of them says he's the only decent thing in the movie. Another one says that the problem with having him in it is that he completely blows everyone else away - that critic said something like 'I give the marriage 18 months' - and that was just on the discrepancy between their acting skills.

The way I figure it is that eventually the movie will end up on a cd, and someone will run it and copy out JD's scene, and I will never, ever, have to watch that film. I saw enough -- her dying scene. Nope, not one jot more. I wait for the clip. I am very patient.

"Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed and some few to be chewed and digested." Sir Francis Bacon, Of Studies

At $160,000, London Fields' per screen average is a dismal $261, the lowest ever for a film rolling out in that number of locations, and among one of the lowest averages ever for a wide debut.

That's $261 from 613 US theaters; $174,000 total worlwide as of today. Only the 2nd film since 1980 to selll less than $200,000 for a 3- day opening weekend. I'm surprised it was released at any major tbeaters at all, let alone made any money.

Even though at least one jerk critic. who has long denigrated Johnny, made a point of attributing this as a Depp film bombing, that is preposterous. Johnny was not even credited and the marketing all focused on Scamber Turd in various sexy poses/ states of undress, which seems fo be the extent of her so- callled " talents."

I went to see London Fields. Since only movie avail. Total garbage. We were only two people I theater. Can’t get those two hours back!! There are never any movies if there are it’s a LOCK that they are a waste of time

This article starts with a headline claiming, that it is a "Johnny Depp disaster" ... Although they're 'honest' enough not to blame him further down in the article. But many people only read the headlines, so - but yes, I know Johnny's name 'sells'

meeps wrote:This article starts with a headline claiming, that it is a "Johnny Depp disaster" ... Although they're 'honest' enough not to blame him further down in the article. But many people only read the headlines, so - but yes, I know Johnny's name 'sells'

Thanks, meeps. I agree with you.

I was under the impression this was an “uncredited” bit role for Johnny. How can any rag be allowed to hang that albatross around Johnny’s neck, given his few minutes on screen, without being held to account? I also noticed the 0% rating has diligently been factored into Johnny’s Rotten Tomatoes filmography. Interesting note: Johnny’s uncredited cameo in the 85% rated 21Jump Street movie (2012) is NOT factored into his filmography.

I think this is the kind of stuff that now demands immediate clarification, despite the risk of being perceived as tedious or petty rebuttals. I don’t know who the folks are in his PR team (does anyone?), but (IMAO) too much unaddressed “throwaway” negativity has been, and still is, being left to fester, in Johnny’s case, for months on line - accsessed, simply, by clicking the incendiary headline that never drops off a “Johnny Depp news” google search. If, however, the rebuttals and clarifications can linger as clickable headlines themselves, and for at least as long as the lies upon which they are based, the effort may be worthwhile.

None of the piranhas who write this clickbait are going to develop a conscience any time soon, but with a major Johnny-film being released in less than three weeks, there is a lot on the line. Variety, Screen Daily, and The Playlist have already dealt crippling blows to Richard Says Goodbye with their hastily produced, lockstep “reviews” after their ZFF viewing, cleverly but insidiously peppering their comments with snide, sometimes personal, jabs at JD, all smacking of uncontested smear-stench from the last two years. If Johnny’s PR folks have to start working proactively 24/7 (BEFORE the feeding frenzy begins for FBTCOG) maybe it’s about time.